Obtaining public input for health‐systems decision‐making: Past experiences and future prospects

Abstract

Interest in finding more effective methods for public involvement in decision‐making about health systems is more widespread than ever in Canada since significant aspects of health‐care decision‐making were devolved from provincial governments to regional health authorities. Involving the public can be risky business, however, as the accountability and legitimacy of decisions made by governing authorities are often assessed against the nature and degree of interaction that occurs with the public. Consequently, decision‐makers in a variety of policy domains routinely struggle with questions about when it is appropriate to involve the public, what the most effective means are for doing this, and how to measure their success. The authors analysed these issues by documenting the experiences of health‐systems decision‐makers in two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec) with public consultation and participation over the past decade. Their findings illustrate that despite the different roles and responsibilities held by Ontario and Quebec decision‐makers, decisions to consult with their communities are driven by the same basic set of objectives: to obtain information from and to provide information to the community; to ensure fair, transparent and legitimate decision‐making processes; and to garner support for their outcomes. Decision‐makers also acknowledged the need to rethink approaches for involving the public in decision‐making processes in response to the perceived failure of past public participation and consultation processes. While these experiences have clearly left some participation practitioners feeling beleaguered, many are approaching future community consultation processes optimistically with plans for more focused, purposeful consultations that have clear objectives and more formal evaluation tinged with a healthy dose of pragmatism. Sommaire: L'intérêt que I'on porte à trouver des méthodes plus efficaces pour inciter le public à participer à la prise de décisions au sujet des systèmes de santé ne cesse de grandir au Canada depuis que les gouvemements provinciaux ont transféré aux autorités régionales la responsabilité d'importants aspects de la prise de décisions dans ce domaine. Cependant, faire intervenir le public peut être une affaire délicate, car la transparence et la légitimité des décisions prises par les autorités existantes sont souvent évaluées par rapport à la nature et au degré d'interaction qui se produit avec le public. C'est pourquoi, les décideurs dans divers domaines de politiques ont généralement de la difficultéà déterminer quand il convient de demander I'avis du public, quels sont les moyens les plus efficaces pour le faire et comment mesurer leur succès. Nous avons analysé ces questions en documentant les expériences que les décideurs des systèmes de santé de deux provinces canadiennes (l'Ontario et le Québec) avaient eues en ce qui concerne les efforts de participation et de consultation publique au cours de la derniére décennie. Nos conclusions démontrent qu'en dé...

Will it make a difference if I show up and share? A citizens' perspective on improving public involvement processes for health system decision-making

“…But the chequered history of previous efforts to involve citizens in health system decision-making 11 prompts questions about the ability of these new structures, on their own, to overcome the problems that have plagued past processes. Informed by the results of the first of three phases of a three-year comparative study of public involvement in regionalised health systems in Canada, we examine the prospects for success of these new participatory processes and offer recommendations to ensure that these institutional mechanisms build on the best available evidence, which includes the perspectives and attitudes of the citizens who are likely to be encouraged to take part in these initiatives.…”

Ethics frameworks in Canadian health policies: Foundation, scaffolding, or window dressing?

“…Some social values are widely shared, i.e., mutual support, basic justice, and sanctions against harm [22]. Beyond this, the determination of specific and policy-directive public values is notoriously difficult [23], both because of the ambiguity of values language and concepts [9], and difficulty defining and authentically involving publics [24,25]. It is not surprising that policy makers often turn to ethics expertise for help.…”

Coproduction in Practice: Participatory Action Research to Develop a Model of Community Aged Care

“…In the delivery of health services, participatory ideals became enshrined in Sherry Arnstein's ladder of citizenship participation (in A Ladder of Citizen Participation, 1969) and during the 1970s in the Alma Ata Declaration. However, whereas Arnstein envisaged a participatory culture in which health service users would play a key role in the decision-making process affecting their care, most subsequent attempts to institutionalise participatory ideals in health services in North America, Europe, and Australia defaulted to relatively low levels of citizen participation (Entwistle et al 1998;Johnson and Silburn 2000;Abelson and Forest 2002;Church et al 2002;Morone and Kilbreth 2003;Nathan 2004). Indeed, today many large health service providers feature consumer reference groups and other mechanisms of citizenship involvement, but few of these institutions are 'participatory' when held against Arnstein's ladder.…”